Dismissed¶¶58

Sri Marinanjappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WA/197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; challenge to BDA land acquisition notice dated 01.01.2001 issued by SLAO, BDA, by writ petition filed only in 2024; non-service of notice contention; disputed questions of fact not decidably under writ jurisdiction; claimant directed to independent/appropriate proceedings; BDA stated acquisition concluded before inter-party disputes settled; Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act; WA No. 197 of 2025 (LA-BDA); Karnataka High Court Division Bench (D K Singh & S Rachaiah, JJ.), decided 12.01.2026; writ appeal dismissed affirming Single Judge's dismissal of W.P. (Annexure-A, dated 16.12.2024).

What did the court decide?

Such a belated challenge to the notice dated 01.01.2001, made by filing the writ petition in 2024, cannot be entertained; the learned Single Judge therefore rightly dismissed the writ petition. ¶¶51

Sri Marinanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1576-DB WA No. 197 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 197 OF 2025 (LA-BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MARINANJAPPA

¶11

DEAD BY LRs.,

¶12

1(a) MUNIYAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O LATE MARINANJAPPA,

¶13

1(b) HONAPPA M AGED 25 YEARS, S/O LATE MARINANJAPPA,

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BOTH R/AT CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA,

¶16

KENGERI HOBLI, TALAGHATTAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 062.

¶17

(BY SRI. NAGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANU SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶21

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:1576-DB WA No. 197 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶26

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PRECINCTS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶27

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SLAO) BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY TE HONBLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 21598/2024 (LA-BDA) DATED 16.12.2024, ETC.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1576-DB WA No. 197 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶38

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2598/2024 filed by the predecessor in interest of the appellant.

¶39

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

¶40

The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition impugning the notice dated 01.01.2001 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner

¶42

submits that the said notice was not served on him and, as such, it was not binding on him. He has placed reliance on some orders which they have passed much subsequent to the date of notice. However, the BDA, in its response before the learned Single Judge stated that there were certain disputes with regard to the land in question and

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:1576-DB WA No. 197 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

that the land acquisition process concluded much before

¶47

those disputes could be settled between the parties.

¶48

The appellant/petitioner has no right over the

¶49

land that they can assert, either over the land or the compensation; they should assert their right in the independent proceedings.

¶50

We have gone through the impugned judgment and order, as well as the orders that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner.

¶51

The appellant/petitioner has challenged the notice dated 01.01.2001 by filing the writ petition in the year 2024. After this Court passed an order in W.P.No.21251/2022 on 07.06.2024. Such a belated challenge to the notice before this Court cannot be entertained and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

¶52